A New Force?

This week has seen one of the longest rifts in British politics healed, and the Conservatives on the way to being a truly all-Britain party.

For the first couple of decades or so after the end of the Second World War, if you talked about the Conservatives, you meant three parties- the Conservatives, the Ulster Unionists and the National Liberals would always enter Government or Opposition together.

The first change to this triumvirate was in October 1968, when the National Liberals- who were down to 4 MPs (John Nott in St Ives; David Renton in Huntingdonshire; Julian Risdale in Harwich and Joan Vickers in Plymouth Devonport)- formally became Conservatives.

Then there was the June 1970 general election which saw the Conservatives return to power with Ted Heath as Prime Minister.

There were 8 UUP MPs in Northern Ireland who were sitting as Conservatives. Out of Northern Ireland's 12 MPs, the others were Bernadette Devlin-McAliskey in Ulster Mid and Frank McManus in Fermanagh & South Tyrone, who were both elected as "Independent Unity", Ian Paisley in Antrim North, elected as "Protestant Unionist", and Gerry Fitt in Belfast West, elected as "Republican Labour."

And then two things happened. The first was a slight change in party allegiances. When the House of Commons first met after the 1970 election, Devlin-McAliskey chose to sit as an "Independent Socialist". In August 1970, the Social Democratic & Labour Party was formed, with Fitt as its leader. October 1971 saw the formation of the Democratic Unionist Party under Paisley's leadership. And in April 1973, Stratton Mills, the UUP MP for Belfast North, joined the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland- the only MP that APNI have ever had.

The second goes back much further. The Government of Ireland Act 1920 was the first attempt at any form of devolution in the United Kingdom, and it created separate devolved Parliaments in Northern Ireland (the counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry and Tyrone) and Southern Ireland (the other 26 counties).

The Northern Ireland one saw the UUP win and hold on to power for another 50 years. The Southern Ireland one saw Sinn Fein win 124 of the 128 seats- this Parliament is known in the Irish Republic as the second Dail Eireann (the first Dail refers to those MPs elected in Ireland at the December 1918 general election).

Following concerns at how the UUP was running Northern Ireland, Heath introduced the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972 and so in March 1972, the Northern Ireland Parliament was suspended, and the new Cabinet post of Northern Ireland Secretary was created and given to Willie Whitelaw.

Whitelaw's plan for Northern Ireland was in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which replaced the Parliament with a 78-member Assembly, to be elected by Single Transferable Vote in 12 constituencies (which were identical to the ones used for the House of Commons).

The UUP was divided on this. While normally if an election is carried out under STV, a party will run a team of candidates in a constituency, hoping to get as many seats in that constituency as possible, the election in June 1973 saw UUP candidates fighting against rather than with each other.

However, a coalition was formed in January 1974 between some of the UUP along with the SDLP and APNI. By that stage, there was a new party on the block- Vanguard- a breakaway from the UUP, led by William Craig, Northern Ireland's former Minister for Home Affairs.

And when there was a general election in February 1974, most of the UUP, together with Vanguard and the DUP, campaigned under the label UUUC (United Ulster Unionist Council). In that election the UUUC ended up with 11 MPs and 51% of the vote- as Fitt (the only non-UUUC MP) wryly noted, 49% of voters got him.

The UUP was down to 7 MPs, but there had been a change. Out of these (John Carson in Belfast North; James Kilfedder in Down North; Harold McCusker in Armagh; Jim Molyneaux in Antrim South; Willie Orr on Down South; William Ross in Londonderry and Harry West in Fermanagh & South Tyrone) only Kilfedder and Molyneaux had been MPs before the election.

Vanguard had 3 MPs- Robert Bradford in Belfast South; Craig in Belfast East and John Dunlop in Ulster Mid- who were all newcomers. The sole DUP MP was Paisley.

Out of Northern Ireland's 12 MPs, only 4 had been MPs before the election.

The crucial fact is that these UUP MPs were no longer connected to the Conservatives. And that proved politically fatal for Heath, for the February 1974 election caused a hung Parliament. Out of the 635 seats, 301 were Labour, 297 Conservative, 14 Liberal and 23 others. Even a Labour/Liberal coalition would be 3 seats short of an overall majority.

Heath did hold talks with Jeremy Thorpe, the Liberal leader, but a Conservative/Liberal coalition would not have the numbers.

But just suppose that Heath had not alienated the UUP, and that there were still 8 UUP MPs sitting as Conservatives. Then a Conservative/Liberal coalition would have an overall majority of 3. It is likely that the rift between the Conservatives and the UUP led to Labour being in power from 1974 to 1979.

Throughout the rest of the 1970s and the 1980s, the Conservatives had little to do, electorally, with Northern Ireland. The first attempt was in the Upper Bann by-election of May 1990, where Colette Jones lost her deposit and came behind a couple of fringe candidates. That election was won by the UUP's David Trimble, who would go on to be UUP leader and Northern Ireland's First Minister, but now sits as a Conservative in the House of Lords.

In the April 1992 general election, the Conservatives did contest a few seats in Northern Ireland, including the controversial decision to contest Down North, where Laurence Kennedy came close to unseating Kilfedder, who by then had left the UUP and was sitting as "Ulster Popular Unionist Party". The controversy here was that Kilfedder had, on the whole, voted with the Conservatives, and was not exactly an enemy of the Conservatives.

And now, the Conservatives and the Ulster Unionists have announced that at the June European election and the next general election, they will contest seats in Northern Ireland as "Ulster Conservatives and Unionists- New Force".

There is one problem I see here, which is the UUP's sole MP, Sylvia Hermon in Down North. Will she be willing to fight on that label, considering that her voting record is so different from the Conservatives', especially over the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008? While I welcome the fact that the Conservatives are now a United Kingdom-wide party, I have concerns at the prospect of Hermon sitting as a Conservative MP, when surely being a Labour MP would be more appropriate for her. [This raises an interesting question- Labour have decided to campaign in Northern Ireland from the May 2011 local elections, but what if Hermon were unwilling to contest the next general election as an Ulster Conservative & Unionist and responded by joining Labour, suddenly giving them a sitting MP in Northern Ireland and forcing them to organise and campaign a year before they intended to?]

On a related note, this week David Burnside, a UUP MLA (Member of the Legislative Assembly) for Antrim South, announced he is leaving the Northern Ireland Assembly, being frustrated at the work there. Now, he was the UUP MP for Antrim South between the June 2001 and the May 2005 general elections, and here is a chance for the Conservatives to show that they are committed to working very closely with the UUP. Although Burnside has not indicated that he wants to return to the House of Commons, it would be possible for an elderly Conservative MP with a safe seat to decide to retire just before the nominations close at the next general election and for the Conservatives to parachute Burnside in as the Conservative candidate.

Change The Record

It is one of those Saturdays again.

Someone in flat upstairs is playing a loud record. The same record again and again and again and again. Thud, thud, thud.... There is no place in my flat where I can get away from it.

A woman yells at him to turn it down, so he responds by turning the volume up. And that happens again.

Listening to it often gives me a headache, given how loud it is. Often if I'm here on a Saturday, I have to wear earplugs.

And the thing is that he doesn't seem to even own a second record.

Yes, Batty Hattie Is Off Her Trolley(bus)

You have got to wonder what Harriet Harman is up to. Is it the stress of juggling five jobs (Labour party deputy leader, Labour party chairman, Lord Privy Seal, Leader of the House of Commons, Minister for Women)?

The latest gem from the woman sometimes called "Batty Hattie" is to do with buses, and she feels that- in the interests of class equality- bus companies should not run buses in middle-class areas, as these people own cars anyway. Instead bus services should be restricted to poorer areas.

Where do you begin with this? The whole point of the Government encouraging use of public transport rather than gas-guzzling cars is not class equality, but environmental reasons.

Moreover, the Government policy on transport is the responsibility of Geoff Hoon, the Transport Secretary.

There is something called collective responsibility, which is the ultimate form of joined-up government and is at the heart of the way British Governments operate. Basically, there is a set of Government policies, and members of the Government publicly support these.

By constantly making policy announcements which are at odds with official Government policy, not only is Harman undermining her Cabinet colleagues, but she is breaching the principle of collective responsibility.

She has developed a habit with this, as she voted for the Iraq war before she was against it. Supposing she really did oppose it from the start, then she could have voted against it-which would have involved giving up her post as Solicitor-General and the nice salary that comes from it.

By the time she was standing for Labour deputy leader in June 2007, she was vocally against the Iraq war- a stance which helped her win the votes she needed. But, she was Minister for Justice, and by taking that stand on Iraq, she was breaching collective responsibility as she was speaking out against Government policy. If Tony Blair, the Prime Minister at the time, had been a strong Prime Minister, he would have sacked her.

When Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, returns from his trip to Washington, he faces a similar choice. He can allow a member of his Cabinet to continually be disruptive and undermine the rest of the Government. Or he can send Harman to the backbenches.

Harman is Deputy Prime Minister. By law, she has to be in the Cabinet.

This is an interesting argument that is sometimes made, with the logic that Labour's deputy leader is entitled to a certain Cabinet post.

Firstly, a Prime Minister is free to appoint whom he or she wishes. Under Labour party rules, when in Opposition, Labour MPs elect fellow MPs to the Shadow Cabinet (it's the Leader of the Opposition who allocates them to specific roles) and the rules are clear that all members of the Shadow Cabinet at the time of the general election who remain MPs after the election become members of the Cabinet. At the time of the May 1997 election, Tom Clarke was Shadow Minister for the Disabled and Michael Meacher was Shadow Environment Secretary.

Yet, when Blair formed his first Cabinet he broke Labour rules as neither Clarke nor Meacher were in the Cabinet. As there was never any legal challenge to this, it is unclear whether a Labour Prime Minister is actually bound by Labour party rules.

Secondly, being Labour deputy leader only confers a special status when Labour is in Opposition. There have been two cases when Labour's deputy leader has been a backbencher while there has been a Labour Government- George Brown from March 1968 to June 1970 and Ted Short from April to October 1976.

Thirdly, Harman is not Deputy Prime Minister.

Brown is perfectly within his rights to sack Harman (he cannot sack her as Labour deputy leader, but he can remove her other four jobs from her) to help ensure that the Government remains united in its last few months. He cannot afford to have a disruptive individual who cannot abide by collective responsibility in the Cabinet- regardless of who she is.

There is a snag though- when Labour loses the next election and Brown becomes Leader of the Opposition, Harman automatically returns from the backbenches as Deputy Leader of the Opposition. There is one way round that- Labour holds its next party conference in September or October, and there would be nothing to stop an election for deputy leader. Labour can, theoretically, oust Harman before the next election...

White(s) Van Man

Paul Stephenson, the Chief Constable of the Metropolitan Police, proudly declared this week that the Metropolitan Police was no longer "institutionally racist."

It might have been difficult to hear him because he had his head stuck in the sand.

One fascinating thing that emerged this week is that in some parts of London, the Metroplitan Police has black and white police officers having to travel in different police vans.

Just how is segregating police officers along racial lines when it comes to travel not racist?

Not My President

Tell the President, and please us these exact words- he is not my boss.... (Rt Hon Harriet Jones MP, Prime Minister, in the Doctor Who episode The Christmas Invasion).

There have been outrageous comments by Rob Shapiro, the economic adviser to US President Barack Obama, who describes the Conservatives' economic plans as "crazy" and "simply not viable". Shapiro's solution seems to be to throw taxpayers' money around, cross your fingers, and hope that Karl Marx was right.

Within the next 15 months we will have a general election. Shapiro is kind enough to share with us Obama's views- that it would be a "matter of great concern" if we did, as opinion polls indicate, elect a Conservative government.

Well, it's our decision- not the White House's- who wins. David Cameron, the Leader of the Opposition, will be going to Buckingham Palace (not the Oval Office) and will be asked by the Queen (not Obama) to form a Government.

Obama owes the Conservative party an apology.

Well, Someone Has Got The Answers

Today, there is the news that Unite the Union has warned that unless loads of cash is thrown at the car industry, then a major factory will close, and Peter Mandelson, the Business & Enterprise Secretary, is standing firm in opposing this. Until recently, Mandelson was the European Commissioner for Trade.

I wrote a few months back about how easy it was for the then US President, George Bush, to get some socialist measures through, and that basically, if the USA had been a member of the European Union, the European Commissioner for Competition, Neelie Kroes, would have looked into the measures and if she felt that the state subsidies skewed the market, she could have referred the matter to the European Court of Justice (as it could be a breach of the Treaty of Rome)- the point being that a European leader wanting to do the same as Bush would have had more hurdles to jump.

Recently, Mitch McConnell, Republican Senator for Kentucky and Senate Minority Leader, condemned the latest measures to throw money left, right and centre at things. Now, the thing I want to note about that is his grating use of the term "European" to things he disagrees with. No need to argue his case- just say "European"!

Unfortunately, McConnell's knowledge of European affairs is negligible.

He sneers at the idea that Europe might have the answers to the current economic crisis. Interestingly enough, over the last quarter of 2008, one-third of EU member nations recorded economic growth.

Maybe, just maybe, those European nations might have some answers to how to deal with the current economy.

------------------

[Added 22 February]

I want to add something about McConnell's claims that this is a "Europeanization" of the American economy, which is that the term is so vague to be meaningless.

Now, he might look at some nations' high-tax high-spend policies, and think "They're in Europe, so that's the European way." But then someone else could note the low-tax (and flat-tax) economies in Central Europe, and say that that is the European way.

If McConnell wishes to get his knickers in a twist about the "Europeanization" of the American economy, then surely he should get worked up about almost any economic policy presented by any President of either party. Practically any economic policy you can think of (apart from communism and bartering) will be used by at least one European country.

What if a future Republican President decided to introduce the flat tax. Would McConnell speak out about it as it'd be a "Europeanization" of the American economy?

The House That Jacqui Built

I wonder what goes through the mind of Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, when she hears the phrase "Home Sweet Home."

For it seems that Smith is getting a bit confused about where she lives.

One thing that can cause a problem for MPs who live far from London is accommodation- even with there being fewer late sittings these days, there is quite a commute. One way round this is that MPs can have second homes. The principle behind these is that this gives an MP a base in, or near, London where they can be close to their work.

Running one house is enough of a task. What about two?

One of the perks an MP has is that- to a certain limit- the taxpayer meets the costs associated with the second home, such as the interest-only element of the mortgage, or the rent, and certain household expenses (I think things like heating, electricity and gas are covered).

While this might sound, at first glance, like a gravy train, the alternatives would be MPs travelling long distances on a daily basis (yes, I know some workers in London do that), or a massive increase in MPs' salaries. Any solution would leave MPs open to the accusation of milking the system for all it's worth.

Since the May 1997 general election, Smith has been MP for the Worcestershire constituency of Redditch, to the south west of Birmingham. She and her husband, Richard Timney, have a house in Redditch.

However, when she is in London for her Government and/or parliamentary duties, Smith stays at the home of her sister, Sara.

It is immediately obvious that Smith's "main residence" is the Redditch home she and Timney have. And her "second home" is Sara's. The obvious application of the rules is that she can claim from the taxpayer any rent she pays Sara- although, if you've ever been unemployed or on a low income and have had to claim Housing Benefit from the local council, you will know the first rule is that you get no Housing Benefit if your landlord is a relative.

However, it is the other way round. Smith's "main residence" is Sara's house, and her "second home" is that she and Timney have in Redditch- for which she claims nearly the maximum allowable allowance.

But the whole idea of the allowance for "second homes" is that this would be the property that an MP would have to buy or rent to help them in their parliamentary duties. And when they left politics they would no longer need that property, so would not get the allowance.

However, although this might be the principle, there is no direct rule saying that what Smith is doing isn't allowed. She is bending the rules, not breaking them.

But why? One suggestion is that she knows she doesn't have long left. The next general election has to be by June 2010, and she is sitting on a very vulnerable seat. On a 2.6% swing, the main image of the next election would be a dejected looking Smith as the words "Conservatives gain Redditch" appear on your TV screen- and note that this swing is small enough for Labour to be the largest party in a hung Parliament, and hence for Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, to remain in office.

So, her career in the House of Commons- and hence the "second home" allowance- will go soon. Sensible to pay off as much of that mortgage before the salary goes. In addition, there is her Cabinet salary. Now, she might have resigned from the Cabinet (or been sacked) before the next election; on the other hand, Brown might move her to the House of Lords (as is fairly normal for people who have been Home Secretary when they leave the House of Commons) and keep her in the Cabinet. However, members of the House of Lords don't get salaries- the taxpayer meets reasonable expenses and that's all they get.

To Ban Or Not To Ban?

So, the Westboro protest in Basingstoke will not go ahead after all. Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary*, took a few moments away from her main task at the moment (that task being the battle to save her political career) to ban the Phelps clan from entering the United Kingdom.

[*Shouldn't she be called the Two Homes Secretary?]

And this raises an interesting issue- is she right? Does freedom of speech extend to the Westboro nutters?

Now, with this first point, I wish to emphasise that I am in no way defending Westboro's views. I want to make that emphatically clear. But what is interesting is that- until recently- certain reggae musicians have been allowed in to perform, who share more-or-less identical views to Westboro as to what should be done to those engaged in homosexual practices. And Labour politicians appear to have no problem with showing how committed they are to diversity by sharing platforms with imans who have similar views to Westboro.

If the Government has no problem with reggae musicians or imans holding and proclaiming these views, then basic consistency means that Westboro should have been allowed in. If Westboro should be banned from the United Kingdom, then so should certain musicians and imans.

A second point is that the Government has not tried to stop Westboro sharing their views here, rather the Government has stopped Westboro coming here and sharing their views. What is the distinction?

In today's Basingstoke Gazette, reporters have taken the effort to talk to Shirley Phelps of Westboro. And Westboro is the front page story in Basingstoke Observer.

Now, just suppose for one moment, that Westboro are right, and their job is truly to warn England. Then they have actually fulfilled their objective. They have had loads of free publicity without having to take one step out of Kansas. They have had the freedom of speech, via the newspapers.

A third point is that there is the distinction between the right to free speech and the idea that others have an obligation to provide you with a platform. A few weeks back, I wrote about the Atheist Bus Campaign (and I refuse to travel by First Southampton buses while that campaign is on), and I noted that the Christian bus driver was not denying them their freedom of speech- they were at liberty to put on sandwich boards and get megaphones and declare there is no God. What they are not at liberty to do is to insist that someone who disagrees with their views plays a role in proclaiming them (even by driving a bus with an atheist campaign slogan on).

Westboro have the right to proclaim their views- they have a website, and have been in the newspapers. Smith's actions have not, in this interconnected world, prevented Westboro from proclaiming their views- all she has done is prevented them from doing this on their terms, by waving placards and yelling at people in Basingstoke.

A fourth point is that there is a difference between "causing offence" and "inciting hatred." Now, this distinction gets blurred, e.g. handing out Gospel tracts in a part of Birmingham which West Midlands Police decide is a "Muslim area" is offensive- the Gospel message is offensive to human pride (people would much rather hear about earning a place in Heaven by being good)- but, despite what West Midlands Police maintain, it is not a "hate crime".

From what Westboro say, it seems they do cross the line between "causing offence" and "inciting hatred." When someone is inciting hatred against a group, then it creates a public order issue as those in that group are put at risk.

On balance, I would come down on the side of saying that Smith did the right thing.

I Didn't Take A Day's Holday From Work And Knock On Doors To Introduce The Nanny State

One thing that happens this week is the final decision on whether we should have flouride put in our water. I take a logical, dare I say it liberal*, stance, namely that it is up to people to decide whether they look after their teeth or not.

Ah, it's for the children. Whatever happened to the idea that parents teach their children basic life skills- like toothbrushing?

I wonder whether all the issues we see these days about bad parenting is because the State increasingly sees people as unable to do basic tasks themselves, and so people learn to get the State to do things for them, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, i.e. there are so many examples of "bad parenting" because the nanny state expects there to be bad parents.

There was an interesting defence of such plans by Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary, saying that it'll give poor children "rich kids' teeth." Now, there is something about that which screams "class war" at you.

The Conservative-run Southampton City Council supports putting flouride in water, although the Conservative-run Hampshire County Council is against.

Now, last May I took a day off work to campaign for the Conservatives. I am starting to regret this now. If Johnson is backing something using "class war" logic then alarm bells should ring in any Conservative's mind.

Mass medication via flouridisation is the nanny state out-of-control. Instead of standing firm against nannyism, these CINOs (Conservatives In Name Only) are wanting to go ahead with this.

And I thought that I had been out campaigning for conservatism. How wrong I was that day in May.

Paddy's Independence

It has been quite a while since Paddy Ashdown, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, has spoken out on domestic politics. However, he has recently called for a referendum on Scottish independence.

The first thing to point out is that calling for a referendum on something does not mean you agree with it- for example, it is those who are most opposed to the Lisbon Treaty who call loudest for a referendum.

What Ashdown appears to be looking back at is the devolution referendum of March 1979. The history to this lies in the turbulent electoral period of the 1970s- and before.

When the Liberals declined as a major party over the first half of the twentieth century, they became increasingly restricted to the "Celtic fringe"- Scotland, Wales and Cornwall.

The February 1974 general election led to a hung Parliament, in which Labour was the largest party, and so Harold Wilson, the Labour leader, returned to the post of Prime Minister which he had held from October 1964 to June 1970.

In Scotland, this election saw the rise of the Scottish National Party- before the election they held just one constituency (Western Isles), but this saw them win 4 seats from the Conservatives (Aberdeenshire East; Argyllshire; Banffshire; Moray & Nairn) and 2 from Labour (Dundee East; Clackmannan & East Stirlingshire).

In Scotland, the three Liberal MPs remained (Joseph Grimond in Orkney & Shetland; Russell Johnston in Inverness-shire; David Steel in Roxburgh, Selkirk & Peebles), but won no more seats.

The Wilson administration didn't last long, and so the people went again to the polls in October 1974, which saw Wilson lead Labour to a small overall majority. There was no change for the Liberals in Scotland, but the SNP won 4 more seats from the Conservatives (Angus South; Dunbartonshire East; Galloway; Perth & East Perthshire).

March 1979 saw the referendum on Scottish devolution, which saw a majority of those voting vote for a Scottish Assembly. However, a little clause in the Scotland Act 1978 meant that to proceed, over 40% of those eligible to vote had to vote for devolution- and hence it fell. With that, any support the SNP felt towards Labour vanished, and when later that month, Margaret Thatcher, at the time the Leader of the Oppostion, introduced a "no-confidence" motion in the House of Commons, the Government lost, and an election was held in May 1979.

This saw Labour win back one seat it had lost to the SNP (Clackmannan & East Stirlingshire), and the Conservatives win back 7 of the lost seats, leaving the SNP with just Dundee East and the Western Isles. The odd seat was Dunbartonshire East, which Labour gained from the SNP- since the May 2005 election this has been held by the Liberal Democrats, making it a very rare case of a constituency which has been held by 4 different parties! Fickle lot.

The Liberals remained with their 3 MPs- although by now Steel was party leader.

The June 1983 did not see any sort of revival for the SNP, which simply held the two seats it had. For the Liberals, in an electoral partnership with the newly founded Social Democrats, it was an upturn.

The Liberals won a couple of seats from the Conservatives- Roxburgh & Berwickshire and Gordon. Boundary changes had split up Steel's seat, with the "Selkirk & Peebles" part, together with some of Midlothian forming the new seat of Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale. The "Roxburgh" part joined with part of Berwick & East Lothian. Although composed from a Labour and a Liberal seat, notionally Roxburgh & Berwickshire had been Conservative. Gordon was more-or-less the old Aberdeenshire East, which the Conservatives had only regained 4 years earlier.

The Social Democrats won 2 seats from Labour- Caithness & Sutherland and Glasgow Hillhead- and one from the Conservatives- Ross, Cromarty & Skye. Caithness & Sutherland had been held for Labour by Robert Maclennan in March 1966, and he had joined the Social Democrats in March 1981. Glasgow Hillhead was won from the Conservatives in a by-election in March 1982 by Roy Jenkins, the former Labour deputy leader, who led the Social Democrats at the time of the 1983 election.

With that history out of the way, what could Ashdown be thinking? Maybe he can remember that when the SNP lost a referendum over 30 years ago, it was followed by a sharp decline in support and the Liberal Democrats can hoover up that support. But the 1979 experience showed that when the SNP vote collapsed, it was Labour and the Conservatives who saw their vote increase. The Liberals (together with the Social Democrats) had to wait until 1983, by which time there was a massive change in Great Britain-wide politics. Yes, you could compare October 1974 with 1983 and see the SNP vote fall from 30% to 12%, the Liberal-ish vote rise from 8% to 25%, note that the fall of one is equal to the rise of the other, and assume that much of the SNP vote in 1974 switched to the Liberal/Social Democrat Alliance in 1983. But that ignores the big changes going on outside Scotland as well- the rise of the Liberals and Social Democrats happened in England and Wales as well as Scotland.

An argument is sometimes made that the SNP and Liberals were attractive to the same type of voter- someone who was outside the mainstream Labour/Conservative duopoly. However, the SNP and Liberal Democrats are not exactly fringe parties anymore. While in England we are used to the battle between the Conservative and Labour, with seats where the Liberal Democrats are players, Scots are used to both the SNP and Liberal Democrats being parties of Government.

Or could Ashdown be trying to reposition the Liberal Democrats to enter coalition with the SNP? One main reason why such a coalition didn't happen was the Liberal Democrat stance on a referendum- if the Liberal Democrats accept Ashdown's position, then they would be agreeing with the SNP on there being a referendum (but not on the outcome of it!) and so, maybe, they could enter a coalition with the SNP.

Westboro Goes Global

One thing that I was shocked to read is that Westboro Baptist Church is coming to Britain. To Basingstoke in fact. To Queen Mary College- where I did my AS-level Accounting course a couple of years ago on Tuesday evenings.

There was a bit about it in Daily Telegraph, and among other things they are doing that are dishonouring to God is referring to the Queen as a "whore".

This is an octogenarian, Christian lady, who has been free of public scandal all her life.

I wonder how many people are brought to faith in Christ because of this? How many people will go "They called the Queen a whore- let's go to church for the first time this week"?

Turn Right

On the way home from work I was nearly knocked over by a car that was going too fast.

This is twice that I have come close to being knocked down either on the way to or from work. And on both occasions it was someone deciding to turn right from Shirley Road into Malmesbury Road and choosing not to use their indicators.

Mind The Gap

As this is the week of the General Synod, I have been buying The Guardian, which normally has reasonable coverage of this.

They also have a campaign about "The Tax Gap."

This relies on the idea that there are things called "corporations" or "companies", which are faceless organisations, who do something very naughty- in that they look at legal ways to reduce the tax they pay.

Of course, one thing that would get Guardianistas frothing at the mouth is the idea that there are privately owned companies, accountable to the shareholders, with a board of directors who actually know about the business area which they are running. The average Guardianista would much rather that everything was owned by "the people", that is inefficiently run by bumbling civil servants.

The "Tax Gap" is what the paper calls the difference between what the companies pay in tax and what they would pay if exemptions and allowances were abolished.

What a wonderful idea, and why not go further? Why stop at faceless companies? Why not extend the "Tax Gap" to personal taxation?

For a start, The Guardian should campaign for the abolition of Individual Savings Accounts and other methods which allow people to save and not pay tax on the interest on their savings. It is a tax avoidance measure- but surely The Guardian should be getting worked up about the "Tax Gap" caused by people wanting to save a little something for their future?

What about personal pensions? My pension contribution comes out of my salary gross (before tax) rather than net (after tax), so effectively the tax that I would have paid on that part of my salary (the part that goes to the pension fund) goes into the pension fund rather than to the Treasury. Surely, The Guardian should campaign on closing that "Tax Gap", and ensure that the contributions to personal pension funds lose about a quarter of their value in one fell swoop, so people end up with smaller pensions when they retire.

If there are any Guardianista with personal pensions (rather than final salary ones paid for out of our Council Tax), then surely they should embrace the "Tax Gap" philosophy whole-heartedly, and write letters to Her Majesty's Revenues & Customs along the lines of:

I am paying £100 per month into my personal pension scheme. In the light of the "Tax Gap" campaign, please take £20 of that per month and give it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

And what about allowances and exemptions, which the paper feels are a form of "Tax Gap"- at least when it comes to faceless organisations?

Well, everyone has their personal allowance, which is what they are allowed to earn before paying tax. If allowances are wrong, then surely this is something that needs to be dealt with. The logical extension to the "Tax Gap" campaign should be the abolition of the personal allowance, so you pay tax from the very first penny you earn- and remember that a lot of welfare benefits are technically taxable.

Welfare benefits being taxable might sound odd, as if you are on benefits you normally get below your personal allowance. However, tax is worked out over the tax year (6 April to 5 April), and so if you are, for example, on Jobseekers' Allowance for some of that time and on a wage the rest of the time, HMRC takes all of it into account.

John is on Incapacity Benefit, and gets £75.40 per week, about £3,900 a year. As this is below his personal allowance he pays no tax. John is therefore taking advantage of a tax loophole and pays no tax. If the "Tax Gap" allowance was abolished, John would be paying £15.08 per week tax.

Janet has two school-age children and receives Child Benefit of £31.35 per week. This is exempt from tax. Janet is therefore taking advantage of a tax loophole and pays no tax on the Child Benefit she receives. If the "Tax Gap" exemption was abolished, Janet would be paying extra tax of £6.27 per week.

Of course, The Guardian would not extend its "Tax Gap" campaign to personal tax- especially for those on low incomes- as that would not be a trendy thing to do.

What they miss is that it's not corporations who pay tax, but people. If a company suddenly has to pay more tax, this reduces the amount they can spend on salaries and wages, or on Research & Development. They might need to sell their products at a higher amount, or a building society would have to charge higher interest rates on mortgages, to compensate. It is silly to assume that a company will go "OK, we'll pay more tax, and are more than happy to have lower profits."

Ultimately, it is people, not faceless organisations, who face the consequences of a "Tax Gap" campaign.

Let Us Be Leaderless

From time to time, there are various groups who want to replace the Queen with a President, often unclear what powers the President would have, how he or she would be elected, the legal relationship between President and Prime Minister etc.

When Republic was going on about this a couple of years back, I emailed them to point out that they were fixated on replacing the Queen, rather than looking at whether a country can cope without a Head of State, noting that the Queen's powers could be spread around several people.

For example, the Queen gives "Royal Assent" to legislation and it becomes law. If there were a republic, there would probably be a written constitution to go with it, and a Supreme Court to interpret it. So, after Parliament passes a Bill, why not have it sent to the Supreme Court to decide if it's constitutuonal or not- and if it is, the Chief Justice can give "Royal Assent".

The Queen formally invites a politician to be Prime Minister and form a Government. In a republic, the House of Commons could elect a Prime Minister after a general election (or if the post falls vacant) and the Speaker of the House of Commons could formally invite the winner to become Prime Minister (maybe even handing over "Seals of Office" to signify that the individual in question is legally Prime Minister).

On to something that might seem completely different. In "sword & sandals" films, set in the Roman Empire era, there often seems to be the mutterings among the Roman Senate about a Caesar becoming too powerful, or someone wanting to rule alone, with the emphasis that the leadership of Rome is shared among many people, and there is no one individual you can point at and say "he is the leader of Rome."

It appears that the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, wants the idea of a President of the European Council to go ahead, and for former Prime Minister Tony Blair to be the first President. What concerns me is the argument that Blair would be a "strong President" able to stand up to the rest of the world.

That sounds like creating a job for a person, rather than choosing a person for the job. Yes, Blair might be a "strong" President, but would being a "weak" President rule someone out? What do we mean by someone being a "strong" or a "weak" President, anyway?

Just because someone might be a "strong" President, doesn't mean that they are the right person. There are plenty of odious individuals down the ages who were "strong" as national leaders.

It also sounds like a power infatuation, wanting someone who can throw their weight around. Yes, Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, could be a "weak" President, as managing a Christian Democrat/Social Democrat coalition, she has to work for consensus and come up with compromises that centre-right and centre-left can agree on. And one of the main political points of the European Union is that there is an emphasis on consensus and co-operation- its institutions bring together people from different countries and political persuasions. A "strong" one-person leadership goes against all that.

Europe doesn't need a Caesar.

If, indeed, we need someone to "stand up" to the rest of the world, then there is corporate leadership which should be doing that, and that leadership is in the Council of Ministers.

The other problem with a Euro-caesar is to do with linkage- basically, institutions that connect people to those making decisions. There is the directly elected European Parliament, which holds the European Commission to account and co-legislates with the Council of Ministers.

And the Council of Ministers is linked to the people as its members are from the national Governments- hence are accountable to the national Parliaments.

A Euro-caesar is linked to the people how? Well, not at all. At the moment, individual nations hold the presidency of the Council of Ministers (with it rotating around the nations), and that nation's Head of Government is effectively President of the European Council. At the moment, that is Mirek Topolanek, the Czech Prime Minister.

And Topolanek can be held to account for his decisions by the Czech legislature. There is always one national legislature that the "President of the European Council" is accountable to.

While there might be an attraction at having a "strong" person whom you can point at and say "There's Europe's leader", surely it is better to continue in the way of having the leadership of Europe spread out among many people and institutions.

The February Poll

The Times has published its latest opinion poll, which goes:

• Conservatives- 42% (up 9.7% from the general election)
• Labour- 28% (down 7.3%)
• Liberal Democrats- 18% (down 4.1%)

If repeated at the next election, with the usual caveats:

• The Conservatives gain 126 seats from Labour, 31 from the Liberal Democrats, 2 from the Scottish National Party and 1 from Kidderminster Hospital & Health Concern- a net gain of 160 seats
• Labour loses 126 seats to the Conservatives, 3 to the Liberal Democrats and 2 to Plaid Cymru- a net loss of 131 seats
• The Liberal Democrats lose 31 seats to the Conservatives, 1 to Plaid Cymru, but gain 3 seats from Labour- a net loss of 29 seats
• The SNP lose 2 seats to the Conservatives
• Plaid Cymru gains 3 seats (2 from Labour and 1 from the Liberal Democrats)
• KHHC lose their sole seat to the Conservatives

This gives an overall result of:

• Conservative- 370 (including 2 Deputy Speakers)
• Labour- 217 (including 1 Deputy Speaker*)
• Liberal Democrats- 33
• Northern Ireland parties- 18
• Plaid Cymru- 5
• SNP- 4
• Respect- 1
• Independent- 1
• The Speaker- 1

[* Sylvia Heal, Labour MP for Halesowen & Rowley Regis, who is one of the Deputy Speakers, would lose her seat to the Conservatives. Labour would choose a Deputy Speaker to replace her).

This gives the Conservatives an overall majority of 90.

4 Cabinet members would be out, all losing their seats to the Conservatives- Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, in Redditch; Alistair Darling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in Edinburgh South West; John Hutton, the Defence Secretary, in Barrow & Furness; and Jim Murphy, the Scottish Secretary, in Renfrewshire East.

In South East England, Labour would be reduced to just 3 seats- Slough; Southampton Itchen; and Southampton Test- while the Liberal Democrats would have just 2- they would hold Lewes and win Oxford East from Labour.

In South West England, Labour would also be down to 3 seats- Bristol East; Bristol South; and Plymouth Moor View- with the Liberal Democrats holding on to 4 seats- Bristol West; St Ives; Thornbury & Yate; and Yeovil.

Saved By Grace, Not By Race

There are sometimes, a few misconceptions about what a Christian is. A fairly common one is that it's due to race, not grace.

I spent about 7 months of my life (and this is going back about 15 years now) training to be a Maths teacher, before I decided that this wasn't the career for me and left my PGCE (Post-Graduate Certificate in Education) course.

But on the course, we had a project to do, and I chose tackling racism in schools as my project. In the books written by educationalists on the topic that I had to read, there was one grating assumption, namely that Christianity was the white, western religion.

When temping in factories, you quickly come across the "folk Christianity"- people who know they are Christians because, well, they're white, they're British and they "don't harm no-one". Where do you even begin?

As it emerges in Mail on Sunday, there are achingly politically-correct council "do-gooders" who have to take action if someone converts to Christianity.

The case- and the details have to remain vagueish to protect those affected- concerns a foster mother who is an evangelical Anglican. And one girl she cared for was from a Muslim background- but already had an interest in Christianity. The foster mother is clear that she allows children she cares for to practice their own religions (if any) and doesn't impose her views on them.

And the girl in question was converted and chose to be baptised.

What concerns me is the council busybodies telling her not to attend church activities for six months (who the hell- and I use that word deliberately- do they think they are?) and to reconsider her conversion. And the foster mother is no longer allowed to foster as she failed to "respect and preserve" the girl's faith? What?!

The girl was 16, able to make decisions for herself. Have the council busybodies never heard that freedom of religion (yes, even to be a Christian) is a defined human right?

Loser's Luck

One big surprise of the April 1992 general election was that the Conservatives won it- the first time that a party had won an overall majority in four successive elections. The opinion polls at the time were unaminous that it would be a hung Parliament, and that we could expect Neil Kinnock (then the Labour leader) and Paddy Ashdown (then the Liberal Democrat leader) to look at some form of co-operation to enable Kinnock to be Prime Minister.

With hindsight, there is always the question whether Labour had the last laugh. There was, of course, all the Europe issues- in Government, would Labour have been hopelessly divided over the Maastricht Treaty, or would loads of MPs elected in June 1983 on the platform of withdrawing from Europe have managed to U-turn so much? In addition, Labour fully supported membership of the Exchange Rate Mechanism, and it is interesting to reflect whether they would have had the guts to take the steps to pull out of it at the time of "Black Wednesday".

It is sometimes said that 1992 was the election that you were lucky to lose. But can the same be said about 2010?

In Sunday Times, Neil O'Brien, director of Policy Exchange, suggests that indeed it might be. He sees unemployment rising and the Government having to raise taxes and/or slash public spending.

That raises, for me, an interesting question- how do the Conservatives lose next year?

The first thing to note is how, with boundary changes, close we are to a hung Parliament. However, last month, Vince Cable, the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats and their treausry spokesman, indicated that the Liberal Democrats would work with the largest party.

If there is a swing from Labour to the Conservatives of, say 2 to 4%, then something interesting happens. The Conservatives get the most votes, but Labour is the largest party in the House of Commons. On a 4% swing (the high end of this):

• Labour loses 51 seats to the Conservatives
• Labour loses 6 seats to the Liberal Democrats
• Labour loses 2 seats of Plaid Cymru
• Labour loses 1 seat to the Scottish National Party
• The Liberal Democrats lose 9 seats to the Conservatives
• The SNP loses 1 seat to the Conservatives

This would bring Labour down to 287 seats, the Conservatives up to 269 and the Liberal Democrats down to 59. Applying the "Cable test", the Liberal Democrats would work with Labour- a team of 346 MPs, an overall majority of 46.

Hence, Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, would have a similar overall majority to now- except it would be a Labour/Liberal Democrat one. And the Conservatives would be in a similar position to Labour after the 1992 election.

When you look at normal changes at elections (i.e. elections other than those big start of a new era ones), 4% is a typical swing (well, a bit on the large size).

Even on such a swing, Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, would see her Redditch constituency return a Conservative MP. And even that would be to Brown's advantage.

A while back, in Daily Mail, Peter Oborne speculated a bit on whether Brown was looking at a National Government, including big prizes for the Liberal Democrats. One of these would be the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer to Cable, and a Liberal Democrat as Speaker of the House of Commons- either former leader, Ming Campbell; or the chairman of the House of Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee, Alan Beith. Although, the Speakership is not a gift from the Prime Minister...

But, how could Smith's defeat help Brown? It would remove a politician from the top table. Brown could take the quickest and simplest option, of moving Alistair Darling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, over to replace her as Home Secretary and make Cable Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, as we saw when John Reid was Home Secretary, there is a bit of controversy when an MP representing a Scottish constituency taking this post, so perhaps move Harriet Harman (the Labour deputy leader, Labour party chairman, Lord Privy Seal, Leader of the House of Commons, and Minister for Women) over to be Home Secretary and let Darling lead the House of Commons.

What would happen to the Conservatives in such a situation? What would be the fate of David Cameron, the Leader of the Opposition?

There would, of course, be those who say that we lost in 2010 for the same reason they think that we lost in 1997, June 2001 and May 2005- we were not right-wing enough. On the other hand, others will say that we did not modernise enough.

Would Cameron be forced to stand down? If so, voluntarily or through a motion of no confidence from MPs? Or would he be seen as the man who increased the number of Conservative MPs and be allowed a second chance?

How The Additional Members System Can Be A Double Edged Sword

I have written a bit about the Additional Members System, and I want to say about how it can be both a benefit and a disadvantage to a party.

When a regional MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament) dies or resigns, the vacancy goes to whoever is next on the list. When a consituency MSP dies or resigns, there is a by-election.

So, what should you go for? Concentrate on the regional lists or on the constituencies?

After the May 2007 election to the Scottish Parliament, the proportion of each party's MSPs who were constituency members were:

• Labour 80%
• Liberal Democrats 69%
• Scottish National Party 45%
• Conservatives 24%
• Greens 0%

The first thing to mention is the Greens, whose 2 MSPs (Robin Harper, Lothians; Patrick Harvie, Glasgow) are both regional ones. Indeed, the Greens do not contest constituencies as:

1. they don't get enough support in a constituency to win
2. in a close constituency, a Green vote could skew the result, e.g. candidate A narrowly wins, but if the Greens had stood, enough of A's voters would have voted Green for candidate B to win.
3. it is better to concentrate resources in getting regional seats
4. it can also create an element of goodwill from supporters of other parties. As people tend to focus on the constituencies, there is an impression given that the Greens aren't your party's rivals

Although, it is important to note that although the allocation of regional seats depends on votes across the regions, there are also published the regional vote on a constituency-by-constituency basis. In the May 2003 election to the Scottish Parliament, in the constituency of Edinburgh Central, the Greens got more regional votes than any other party.

In 2007, Edinburgh Central became a close three-way Labour/Liberal Democrat/SNP marginal. I wonder what would have happened if the Greens had thought "this is a constituency we could win" and ran Harper as their candidate there?

One thing that can happen with AMS is that within a particular region, one party can do so well on the constituency part that it wins more constituencies than the number of seats in the region that it would be entitled to on a proportional basis. An example of this is the May 1999 election to the Scottish Parliament. On a strictly proportional basis, Labour would have been entitled to 8 of Glasgow's 17 MSPs. However, it won all 10 of Glasgow's constituencies. This creates an element of disproportionality in the results.

The German Bundestag uses a slightly different form of AMS. In that system, Glasgow would have returned 19 MSPs, rather than 17, to allow for the fact that Labour got 2 "overhang" seats. Hence, the size of the Bundestag is not known in advance of an election, as extra top-up seats might need to be created in a region when something like this happens.

AMS does have a bias towards parties which win constituencies. So, surely, the best thing is to target constituencies.

Well, yes.... and no.

The benefit of regional seats is that you can't normally lose them. OK, a regional MSP might switch parties, or become an Independent, but generally, if you have n regional seats after an election, you can reasonably expect to keep those for the 4 years.

Constituency MSPs are different. When one of those dies or resigns, then there has to be a by-election. However, this has no impact on the allocation of regional MSPs- no regional MSP can be removed because of a by-election.

If- like Labour- most of your MSPs are constituency ones, you have to worry about one of them dying or resigning, and having a by-election triggered.

A party which has mainly constituency MSPs does have a strong hand- in that its number of MSPs is greater than it would be under a strictly proportional system- but there is this problem that you are more likely to lose seats.

There is an example which demonstrates this. After the 1999 election, the tightest marginal was Ayr, where Labour's Ian Welsh had a majority of 25 over the Conservatives' Phil Gallie (who had been MP for Ayr from April 1992 to May 1997, when he lost to Labour's Sandra Osborne). The allocation of regional MSPs for Scotland South depended on which party won which constituency in the region, and so there were 4 Conservative and 3 SNP regional MSPs there.

However, what if Gallie had won Ayr? Well, the Conservatives would only have been entitled to 3 regional MSPs- these would be the second through to the fourth on the list (Alex Fergusson, Murray Tosh, David Mundell), as Gallie was top of the list. Fergusson is now MSP for Galloway & Upper Nithsdale and the Scottish Parliament's Presiding Officer while Mundell is now the MP for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale and the Shadow Scottish Secretary.

Labour would have been entitled to 1 regional MSP- Keith Geddes.

In a way, narrowly losing Ayr was a good result for the Conservatives, due to the properties of AMS. In December 1999, Welsh resigned, and there was a by-election in March 2000, which was won by the Conservatives' John Scott.

There was some mumbling from Labour that the allocation of regional MSPs should be recalculated to allow for the change in Ayr's status- which would have seen Mundell give up his seat for Geddes- but the rules are clear in what matters is the constituency results at the general election, and what happens to a constituency afterwards is irrelevant.

So, the Conservatives were one seat better off by not having won Ayr in 1999.

There is another interesting property with AMS, in that it allows for interesting forms of tactical voting. How can voting Conservative or Liberal Democrat help increase the number of Green or Scottish Socialist Party MSPs?

In the Lothians region in 1999, Labour won 8 of the 9 constituencies (all except the Liberal Democrat Edinburgh West). And when the regional MSPs are allocated, there are 3 SNP, 2 Conservatives, 1 Liberal Democrat and 1 Green.

The two Conservative ones are David McLetchie (who was the leader of the Conservative MSPs when the Parliament met) and James Douglas-Hamilton. McLetchie had contested Edinburgh Pentlands and Douglas-Hamilton contested Edinburgh West (which he had represented in the House of Commons from October 1974 until losing to the Liberal Democrats in 1997). The Liberal Democrat one was the former Liberal leader, David Steel, who was the Parliament's first Presiding Officer.

In 2003, Labour saw two defeats in Lothians. In Edinburgh Pentlands, McLetchie defeated the sitting Labour MSP, Iain Gray, who at the time was the Minister for Enterprise & Transport, and is now the MSP for East Lothian and leader of Labour's MSPs. In Edinburgh South, the Liberal Democrats' Mike Pringle defeated the sitting Labour MSP, Angus MacKay.

Even with these defeats, Labour still had more constituency MSPs in Lothians than they would be entitled to under a more proportional system, so they did not have the consolation prize of any regional MSPs (that would come in 2007, when Labour lost both Edinburgh East & Musselburgh and Livingston to the SNP).

So, who were the real winners here? If Labour had held both Edinburgh Pentlands and Edinburgh South then the Conservatives would return two regional MSPs (McLetchie and Douglas-Hamilton) and the Liberal Democrats one (Pringle, with Steel having retired). But, instead, the Conservatives ended up with one regional MSP (Douglas-Hamilton).

Regardless of the result in Edinburgh Pentlands and Edinburgh South, the Conservatives would have had 2 MSPs and the Liberal Democrats 1. McLetchie and Pringle would have been in the Scottish Parliament whether they won their constituencies or not.

However, by reducing by one the number of Conservative and the number of Liberal Democrat regional MSPs, this created a space for two other regional MSPs- the Greens' Mark Ballard and the SSP's Colin Fox.

The effective result of the Conservatives winning Edinburgh Pentlands and the Liberal Democrats Edinburgh South was that the number of Labour MSPs reduced by two, and the Greens and the SSP each got an extra MSP.

And this is how tactical voting under AMS can work:

• You live in a region where party A does so well in the constituency vote that it stands no chance of getting any regional MSPs, even if it loses a constituency or two
• You live in a constituency where party A has a narrow lead over party B, and B does have regional MSPs
• You support party C
• You figure that if B wins the constituency, then it will have one fewer regional MSPs, and that makes it easier for C to win a regional seat
• Therefore, you give your constituency vote to B and your regional vote to C.

Next On The List

If you follow Scottish politics, you will be aware that the Scottish Parliament is elected by the Additional Members System. There are 73 constituencies (71 of these are the same as the ones used for elections to the House of Commons in May 1997 and June 2001. The other 2 are Orkney and Shetland, which form one constituency in the House of Commons).

Then there are the 56 additional members. If the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999 had not been passed in time, then the June 1999 election to the European Parliament would have been on First Past The Post in single-member constituencies, and constituencies were drawn up as a contingency. The English ones are of academic interest only, but Scotland had 8 constituencies drawn up- Glasgow, Higlands & Islands, Lothians, Mid Scotland & Fife, Scotland Central, Scotland North East, Scotland South, Scotland West.

Although never used for the purposes they were drawn up for, these European constituencies became the regions for "top-up" MSPs (Members of the Scottish Parliament), with each of these returning 7 additional MSPs.

In Glasgow at the May 2007 elections, the Scottish National Party returned 5 MSPs. Nicola Sturgeon, the deputy leader (now Scotland's Deputy First Minister and Health Secretary), narrowly won Glasgow Govan from Labour, and the 4 top-up MSPs were Bashir Ahmad, Sandra White, Bob Doris and Bill Kidd, who were the second through to fifth on the SNP's Glasgow list (Sturgeon topped the list, so would have been an MSP whether she won Glasgow Govan or not).

On Friday, Ahmad died suddenly, and so a new MSP needs to be found to replace him.

And, according to the Scotland Act 1998, the selection is simple. Anne McLaughlin was sixth on the SNP's Glasgow list, so she will be invited to take the vacant seat.

Whenever things like this happen, there is the usual predictable criticism, and I expect this will happen when McLaughlin takes her seat. It's "Buggin's turn." Why didn't she face the electorate? Why isn't there a by-election?

The problem with this line of thinking is that it forgets that a regional MSP is elected completely differently from a constituency MSP. And it would be illogical to select a new regional MSP using the method that is used for constituency ones.

McLaughlin did face the electorate, indirectly. Her name was on the SNP list that would have been available for anyone in Glasgow to look at. In the Additional Members System (and indeed, any list system), a party is entitled to n list seats, and there is a process for filling those seats. The SNP are entitled to 4 list seats in Glasgow, and there is a clear legal way that they are filled.

What are the "there should be a by-election" brigade saying? Surely, the logical extension of their position is that all regional MSPs should be elected directly by name.

Suppose, for example, this is the route that is taken. As well as your constituency vote, you have a regional vote where you put an "X" by 7 names. Most people will go by party, so you would see Glasgow, Scotland Central, Scotland South and Scotland West each return 7 regional Labour MSPs, and the other 4 regions each return 7 regional SNP MSPs. And hence, Labour- the second largest party in terms of vote- would walk away with 65 MSPs, an overall majority.

The point is that the regional MSPs are there to make the result more proportional. To directly elect them would make the result less proportional.

Hospital Prayers

One big story this week is about Caroline Petrie, a nurse in North Somerset, who was suspended after offering to pray for an elderly lady, and has now been unsuspended.

In the light of this, the Daily Telegraph has unearthed new National Health Service rules that make clear that an NHS employee "to preach and to try to convert people" could make people feel "harassed and intimidated" and this would be a matter for the disciplinary and grievance procedures.

However, the rules are drawn up so vaguely, that there are concerns that even talking about one's faith would be a breach of these rules.

There is another problem, as there are some atheists who like to start a discussion about religion so they can then claim to be, not exactly victimised, but something close to it. In one temping job years ago, I had such a colleague, who would be negative about Christianity, and whenever I responded, would suddenly get moralistic about me forcing religion down his throat.

My point is, there could be such people in the NHS, ready to start conversations criticising Christianity, and the moment someone disagrees with them, run off and go "Matron! Matron! Nurse A is forcing her religious views on me."

It's OK To Condemn The Forces Of Conservatism Again

Much has been in the news today about US President, Barack Obama, and former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, attending a Prayer Breakfast in Washington.

One interesting thing are the readings from the Bible and the Koran, with Blair emphasising that they are saying the same things. Of course, one of Blair's tasks is to promote his New York based Faith Foundation, and so he is keen to give the impression that all religions teach basically the same, and he clearly sees himself as the person to unite religions.

One of Blair's most famous speeches was at the Labour party conference in 1999, when he vowed to fight the "forces of conservatism." Something he obviously didn't shout about when trying to get American conservatives to contribute towards his mortgages!

Now that George Bush is history, the pressure is off Blair, and he no longer has to go through the charade of pretending not to be a socialist when he visits the USA. Though, give him his fair dues, he did manage to keep that pretence going for 8 years. While you cannot fool all of the people all of the time, Blair came closer to it than most people could manage.

And yesterday Blair was whinging that the people of Britain didn't "appreciate" him. How self-indulgent and sulky can you get? Maybe he isn't "appreciated" because he didn't do anything to be appreciated for. It will take decades to undo the damage he did as Prime Minister- in politics there is no "reset" button which will return Britain to how it was before he took over.

But it is interesting that, yet again, Blair uses a trip to the USA to slag off the British people. The country he has developed such contempt and hatred for is actually the one which he owes everything to. If he despises Britain so much, why doesn't he ask Obama for American citizenship, and give up his British citizenship?

[In fact, when the Conservatives return to power, why not have a one-line Act of Parliament stripping Blair of his British citizenship?]

What also was Blair whinging about? Oh, the Daily Telegraph. Yes, Blair, it's "conservative". But now he feels free to lash out at anything conservative.

57 Years

Today is, of course, the fifty-seventh anniversary of the Queen acceeding to the throne. Over the past few months she has overtaken Henry III, and now there are only 3 British monarchs who have reigned for longer (Victoria, George III and James VI).

You suddenly realise that there is probably no-one under the age of 60 who can remember any other monarch.

Meet Tony's New Bestest Friend

Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister, has a brand new best friend. They will be best friends for the next 4 or 8 years (in November 2012, there will be an election to decide whether Blair keeps his current best friend as his best friend or ditches him for a new best friend).

Who knows what the future holds for a beautiful friendship? Maybe in 4 years time, he will indeed have a new best friend, and will try and build a rapport with her by saying that as a child he used to hunt and shoot moose in the streets of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

When he became Leader of the Opposition, back in July 1994, Blair quickly chose a man called Bill Clinton as his bestest friend in the whole world. But the clock was ticking, and both would have known that after January 2001, Clinton would have to be ditched from his "best friend" position.

Indeed when 2001 came, a man called George Bush became Blair's best friend. Now, there were those who misunderstood this, and assumed that Blair had gone from being a Clinton acolyte to being a close ally of Bush, with a sudden rightwards shift in views. No, Clinton had become a has-been, and who wants a has-been as their best friend?

And having Bush as his best friend was of great financial benefit to Blair when he stopped being Prime Minister, and had to find money to pay all those mortgages of his. Blair could rush round the USA, receiving awards and medals for things he hadn't actually achieved, and conservatives, who believed he was "one of us" would pay to hear him give talks.

The apogee of this was last month when Bush awarded Blair the Presidential Medal of Freedom. As he placed the medal round a smirking Blair's neck, did Bush realise that he would soon cease to useful to Blair, and that he would be stabbed in the back weeks later?

It is amazing the speed with which Blair has distanced himself from his former best friend. With the Democrats in control of the White House and both parts of Congress, conservatism is no longer where it's at. The in-crowd that any ambitious person throws themselves in with is on the political Left.

No surprise that today, a man called Barack Obama is now Blair's bestest friend in the whole world, with Blair gushing about Obama.

In the summer of 1997, when Blair had only been Prime Minister for weeks, the then Liberal Democrat leader, Charles Kennedy, referred to him as a "political chamaeleon." And surely Blair's sudden shifting of loyalties from Democrat to Republican and back again, depending on who's in power, is chamaeleon-like.

Dear Old Irwin's Latest Twaddle Is Simply Beyond Our Ken

As it's Wednesday, the Daily Telegraph goes off to Irwin Stelzer's Washington ivory tower, and we learn more about this country of ours.

One learns so much from his articles- indeed, if it were not for his articles, I would still be believing that Britain has a monarchy.

This week, Stelzer is harping on that Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, has not been elected to that post by the electorate. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Will Stelzer ever learn the basic principles of a parliamentary democracy? Tony Blair was never elected Prime Minister by the people. Nor was Margaret Thatcher. Not even Winston Churchill was!

But he has another target- the Shadow Business & Enterprise Secretary, Ken Clarke.

As Stelzer warns, the Conservatives are "paying a high price" for Clarke's return. Oh, and that price is, what exactly?

Reading Stelzer's latest guff, one would believe that Clarke is economically illiterate and incompetent, someone you would not let near your economy. Nothing in Stelzer's article mentions that Clarke was Chancellor of the Exchequer for four years, in which time he turned the economy round and created the strong economy which Labour took over ten years to squander.

Rather than being the economic ignoramus that Stelzer portrays him as, Clarke is without a doubt the best Chancellor of the Exchequer of the last 50+ years.

How To Avoid Being Disillusioned

Simple- don't believe the hype in the first place.

It is interesting to see the perceptive comment by Clive Stafford-Smith, director of the human rights group, Reprieve, noting that at the moment liberals are "totally deluded" when it comes to US President Barack Obama.

Several times, in the run-up to the November elections, I would be told about this wonderful new era which Obama would introduce, an era of peace, harmony and international co-operation (yeah, right. So committed to interntational co-operation that it took him little over a week to fire the first economic shot in what could turn into a trade war).

What has triggered Stafford-Smith's comment is to do with extraordinary rendition, which, of course, George Bush was roundly condemned for. And Obama has signed an Executive Order, which allows the CIA to continue with renditions.

On top of this, Claude Moraes, a Labour Member of the European Parliament for London, notes how difficult it is to criticise Obama as he has "god-like status at the moment."

It's not going to take long until the Islington chattering classes turn on Obama, when they see he hasn't inaugurated what they thought he would. Give it a few months, and there will be an editorial in The Guardian with the headline "Worse than Bush".

It's A Snowflake- Time For The Country To Grind To A Halt

So, we had a bit of snow today. It's not the end of civilisation. It'll all be forgotten about next week.

OK, so I slipped over twice walking to the railway station, but that was because I was wearing the shoes for my office (black, no grip) and at lunchtime went out to try and buy something more sensible, so walked home with boots that are designed for men on building sites.

I was in work late this morning, as the trains were all up the spout. There were signs up at Southampton Central informing us that due to "adverse weather conditions" (a few centimetres of snow for crying out loud. I mean, after all, I did live in Scotland for four years and you simply get used to snow. On Sunday evenings I have been watching Ice Road Truckers, which is based in the North West Territiories. They simply get on with it. Imagine if the attitude there or in Alaska was "It's snowing! We can't get on with our normal lives! Stay in! Don't go to work!") there would be a "skeletal" service.

"Skeletal" service. Isn't that what you get with ghost trains?

I looked at one of those signs, and just said out loud that the Canadian rail service doesn't collapse due to a bit of snow. Amtrak doesn't. The German rail service doesn't. Another commuter added that the Swedish rail service still runs in snow.

The National Rail website mentioned that trains between Basingstoke and Southampton Central were one every two hours, but when I phoned the National Rail Enquiries helpline I was told that they are all running normally!

Visiting Basingstoke station to find out the times was a non-starter. Bear in mind, we are only passengers, there to provide South West Trains with its profits. The idea that we should be told what's going on, or even be given train times, is far-fetched from their perspective.

The helpful suggestion? To just pop along and listen to announcements. I calmly pointed out that there is no way I am going to and fro from my office just on the off-chance that there is an announcement.

When I did get a train home, it had come all the way from Manchester and was only slightly delayed. I hate the way that staff at Basingstoke try and create a melodrama out of a little sprinkling of snow.